ILNews

Appeals court affirms murder convictions

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man's convictions of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and the finding that he is a habitual offender.

In Charles D. Boney v. State of Indiana, No. 22A01-0607-CR-310, Boney was connected to the murder of Kim Camm and her two children at home by her husband, David. Boney provided the weapon David used to murder his family and was at the Camm's home when the murder occurred.

Boney raised several issues on appeal following his jury trial and convictions. He argued his convictions should be reversed because the trial court erred in letting the state exercise a peremptory challenge on a prospective juror who was African-American; specific pretrial statements Boney gave to police officers were improperly admitted into evidence; the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for mistrial because of comments made by witnesses regarding Boney's previous incarceration; the trial court erred in refusing to give his proffered instruction on accomplice liability; and the trial court should have granted his motion to correct error based on juror conduct.

The appellate court found no reversible errors and affirmed the trial court's decision.

The reason the African-American prospective juror was excused was based on his responses to the juror questionnaire, not because of his race, so the denial of Boney's Baston challenge by the trial court was not an error, the court found.

Statements Boney had made to police without receiving a Miranda warning were admissible in court because he had made similar statements to another police officer he spoke to earlier that day in which he was advised of his Miranda rights. He also signed a waiver of the right to counsel.

In regards to the trial court denying Boney's motion for a mistrial, the trial court instructed the jury to disregard statements made about Boney's prior incarceration and struck a witness from the trial in order to prevent any harm that may have resulted from the testimony. Any error that may have occurred as a result of the admission of the statements or testimony stricken from the record was harmless, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

The final jury instruction given by the trial court sufficiently informed the jury about the requirement of finding affirmative action on the part of the defendant before he can be convicted as an accomplice, so Boney's instructions for the jury did not need to be given.

Finally, Boney contended he is entitled to a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct. However, the juror Boney pointed to was excused prior to deliberations and the 11 remaining jurors signed affidavits stating that juror did not influence them nor did he ever make any racist or prejudiced statements regarding Boney. Because the juror did not participate in the deliberations nor influence the other jurors, Boney's argument fails, wrote Chief Judge Baker.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT